SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No. 2, thereby setting aside the order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division-respondent No. 3, restoring the order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No. 4, vide which respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lambardar. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Sh. Mal Singh, Lambardar of village Tibba, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, on 2.11.2001, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended name of respondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Consequently, after examining the comparative merits of the candidates, the District Collector, Sangrur, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 was the best candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Accordingly, vide his order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, who accepted the same by passing a totally non speaking and cryptic order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, respondent No. 5 approached the Financial Commissioner by way of revision petition, who allowed the revision of respondent No. 5, setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and the order passed by the District Collector, appointing respondent No. 5 as Lambardar was restored, vide order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner have proceeded on an erroneous approach while not appreciating better candidature of the petitioner. He further submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, was based on true facts and circumstances of the case, but the same was illegally set aside by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). He next contended that in view of better merit, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Lambardar in place of respondent No. 5. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.